Why SYNDICATE?

[RobertScorpio]

The reason I thought they went to Syndication was so they could tell more mature episodes and be more risky with out NETWORK intervention. But then I would hear things like "we couldn't go further with this or that (violence and sex) because..." for whateve reason...

Meanwhile I would turn on BABEWATCH back in the day, to watch the Babes in their swimsuits, and see all kinds of stuff going on there.

But then maybe Paramount is actively keeping the show aimed at kids, which is, I think, good idea but makes the show, at times, kinda fit the 'dorky' persona it has...what do you think? Should TREK even move towards a more mature formula (more sex/adult thems..and no I dont mean porn) or just keep it as it is..aimed at 14 year old boys?

Rob
scorpio

 

[spoonunseptium]

I think they managed a good balance... there were plenty of references to sex and plenty of violence.


Ever seen First Contact- "Was that good for you?"- Borg Queen

Or, ST:Voy episode Blood Fever - "...this is about sex!" -Tom Paris

and, there were two women french-kissing on DS9, which I guess is pretty risque. Not only that, but an ear massage for a Ferengi is the equivolent of a hand job.

and, uh, Pon Farr. Need I say more?

As for violence, there's lots of killing and shooting and punching and bruises and blood...not very much blood, but folks still get knocked around a bit.


And yet, Star Trek still manages to be relatively OK for kids.

I wouldn't change anything.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I think they managed a good balance... there were plenty of references to sex and plenty of violence.


Ever seen First Contact- "Was that good for you?"- Borg Queen

Or, ST:Voy episode Blood Fever - "...this is about sex!" -Tom Paris

and, there were two women french-kissing on DS9, which I guess is pretty risque. Not only that, but an ear massage for a Ferengi is the equivolent of a hand job.

and, uh, Pon Farr. Need I say more?

As for violence, there's lots of killing and shooting and punching and bruises and blood...not very much blood, but folks still get knocked around a bit.


And yet, Star Trek still manages to be relatively OK for kids.

I wouldn't change anything.

Oh I agree with you totally..but when I hear the producers of Trek complain about not being able to push the envelope sometimes, I am confused. MASH--SOAP--ALL IN THE FAMILY, very risky shows at the time, all came out after TOS. But every so often I'd hear TNG producers talking about not being able to push the envelope on certain issues because they worried about censorship..I don't know..maybe I am blending memories on this one..it happens when you get older; trust me..

Rob

 

[Captain Kirk]

When you syndicate a show, your "censors" become the stations paying money to buy your show and put their ads in it. If they think your show won't play in their area, they stop buying it. Enough stations do that, your show tanks.

Also, I'm sure Paramount was interested in protecting the Star Trek brand and had major input.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Syndication didn't have to do so much with airing risqué stuff, it had to do with being able to air the show at all. Star Trek didn't have a home, it just had a producer (very different from the original series, which had NBC backing it because they wanted a show from Desilu). It wasn't until UPN that they had a network (and then they actually had significantly more interference because they did have both Paramount and UPN playing cooks for the show).

But, as far as censorship went, they self-censored themselves to appeal to the widest possibility of buyers.

 

[miraclefan]

Besides, being more ''Mature'' hasn't really helped NU-GALACTICA, in total it had fewer episodes then ''Enterprise''! And ''Sci-fi'' was supporting it!

 

[RobertScorpio]

Syndication didn't have to do so much with airing risqué stuff, it had to do with being able to air the show at all. Star Trek didn't have a home, it just had a producer (very different from the original series, which had NBC backing it because they wanted a show from Desilu). It wasn't until UPN that they had a network (and then they actually had significantly more interference because they did have both Paramount and UPN playing cooks for the show).

But, as far as censorship went, they self-censored themselves to appeal to the widest possibility of buyers.

My point is that he could have sold TNG to a network. In fact I have read else where that NBC and ABC were interested. He said he didn't go to TV because he didn't like the networks sticking their nose into his business yet I see silly episodes like JUSTICE and wonder what the heck is he talking about? Especially when, by 1987, most of what he thought they would cut out was already being done on TV anyway...

Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

Damn..another double post..sorry..

Rob

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Syndication didn't have to do so much with airing risqué stuff, it had to do with being able to air the show at all. Star Trek didn't have a home, it just had a producer (very different from the original series, which had NBC backing it because they wanted a show from Desilu). It wasn't until UPN that they had a network (and then they actually had significantly more interference because they did have both Paramount and UPN playing cooks for the show).

But, as far as censorship went, they self-censored themselves to appeal to the widest possibility of buyers.

My point is that he could have sold TNG to a network. In fact I have read else where that NBC and ABC were interested. He said he didn't go to TV because he didn't like the networks sticking their nose into his business yet I see silly episodes like JUSTICE and wonder what the heck is he talking about? Especially when, by 1987, most of what he thought they would cut out was already being done on TV anyway...

Rob

Well, he didn't want interference, but not necessarily for censorship reasons. They might have other demands.

 

[Maurice]

Syndication was about money: not creative freedom. Networks will rarely guarantee you a full season, even in the 80s. The ratings slip and it's the axe. A Star Trek show is expensive to mount, so Paramount sold full seasons into syndication because that way they could guarantee they'd get a full year and not be axed after 6 episodes. That you lose the network notes and only have to deal with notes from the studio is a side benefit.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Syndication was about money: not creative freedom. Networks will rarely guarantee you a full season, even in the 80s. The ratings slip and it's the axe. A Star Trek show is expensive to mount, so Paramount sold full seasons into syndication because that way they could guarantee they'd get a full year and not be axed after 6 episodes. That you lose the network notes and only have to deal with notes from the studio is a side benefit.

Well...TNG should have been cancelled after 6 episodes. Yeah, I know, it would have meant the end of Star Trek..but so what? It would have made them come back with a better product instead of 18 more dumbass episodes that season one tortured us with....most scripted shows made for syndication suck anyway..GR's going to syndication, IMO, meant he wasn't sure he could put out a good product and the show might have tanked..HE WAS RIGHT..it would have been axed one week after JUSTICE, had it been on a major network. So what?

Rob